In Sturbridge, letter alleges selectman threats

And now a Planning Board member is alleging that a selectman threatened to “make sure” that “certain Planning Board members” would be voted out in the next town election.

In a letter to selectmen, Planning Board member Russell R. Chamberland said he was “shocked” to hear Selectman Priscilla C. Gimas vow to keep some members of the board, including its chairman, from being re-elected in April.

“This kind of strong arm and bullying tactics have no place in the operation of our town and I am totally appalled by Selectman Gimas’s words and threats towards long-serving public servants,” Mr. Chamberland wrote. “This just reinforces my and others’ belief how vile and vindictive some of the current BOS are.”

In response, Ms. Gimas said, “Mr. Chamberland’s use of the word ‘threat’ is an attempt to incite an already sensitive situation.

“My statement did not imply anything remotely harmful but spoke to the behavior demonstrated by several members of the Planning Board at the recent meeting, and the chair’s refusal to allow me to speak as a resident,” Ms. Gimas said. “I stated that if some of these names would appear for reappointment, I, for one, would not support it.”

Furthermore, Ms. Gimas said, several Planning Board members created a “hostile environment” and she had to sit there and endure the “vitriol and nefarious comments” the board made about the selectmen.

Ms. Gimas’ alleged “threat” came after the Planning Board’s Tuesday night meeting, at which Planning Board Chairman Sandra Gibson-Quigley called the selectmen “illogical” and “wrong” and said they were “doing a disservice” for not appointing the Planning Board’s choice of member Charles T. Blanchard to the Commercial Tourist District Working Group, a board subcommittee.

Selectmen shot down Mr. Blanchard, whom the planning board had unanimously approved (7-0) as one of its two allotted members for the subcommittee, twice in two separate 3-2 votes.

Previously, Selectman Thomas R. Creamer, his board’s chairman, said he had concerns that Mr. Blanchard’s spouse, Selectman Mary Blanchard, might vote on recommendations stemming from the subcommmittee on which her husband sat. He also said he was uncomfortable with Mr. Blanchard’s involvement with other committees in town.

On Tuesday night, Ms. Gibson-Quigley said it was clear that selectmen were not going to ratify Mr. Blanchard’s appointment, but that didn’t make it right.

“I think it’s clearly pettiness. And there is a personal issue there. I can think of no other reason,” Ms. Gibson-Quigley said. “The reasoning, to me, is illogical. And I have a problem that whoever we nominate, other than being a spouse of a selectmen, is on a number of committees … That really bothers me … I think the selectmen are wrong and they are doing a disservice.”

At the Tuesday meeting, Mr. Chamberland said he stands by his vote for Mr. Blanchard and will not be changing it.

“I find it very disheartening that in the last month the Board of Selectmen voted twice against our recommendations,” Mr. Chamberland said. “I have known Mr. Blanchard for close to 40 years. He has always acted, in my opinion, in the best interest of the whole town. And I see no reason, whatsoever, to change my nomination or my vote.”

Also at the meeting, Planning Board member James M. Cunniff said he was very upset at how selectmen conducted themselves in the matter.

“I think the present practice of the Board of Selectmen leaves them wide open to criticism,” Mr. Cunniff said. “Why is it sometimes things will be reviewed and sometimes they will not? We have other cases that have gone before the Board of Selectmen where a spouse of a person being appointed or nominated or being heard has not been objected to on the basis that there might be some collusion going on.”

Mr. Blanchard said the Commercial Tourist District Working Group is a nonbinding subcommittee that was to be put together simply to facilitate working with consultants. In addition, Mr. Blanchard said, Mr. Creamer didn’t have problems in the past with a dozen of people having multiple roles in the town.

“I think the whole concept of this collusion or conflict really doesn’t exist with this committee at all,” Mr. Blanchard said. “The consistency with the Board of Selectmen is certainly not there.”

In a 4-3 vote, the Planning Board voted for Penny J. Dumas as its new nominee for the Commercial Tourist District Working Group. Selectmen will most likely vote on Ms. Dumas’ appointment on Feb. 25.